Iran 'must be stopped': Arab leaders pushed U.S. to attack, WikiLeaks disclosures show

Iran 'must be stopped': Arab leaders pushed U.S. to attack, WikiLeaks disclosures show

Leaders of the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula monarchies repeatedly have beseeched the United States to attack Iran and take out its nuclear
facilities, according to a series of classified diplomatic cables released to news organizations by the website Wikileaks.

King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet, were among the Arab leaders lobbying the
U.S. for an attack on Iran. One Saudi official reminded Americans that the king had repe

The news report is merely an over dramatisation over the new wikileaks post, if you care to read it yourself its hardly worth discussing but also king
(whatever his name is "abah makethebed" something like that) is later compared to nothing less than a modern day Hitler by the respective embassy
there

This is damage limitation.Picking items out that are of use and over senstationlising them to the advantages of the powers that be... Further since it
was the saudis that have been finding al qaeda. whom are we supporting?
It really blurs the lines...
kx

During a meeting on Nov. 4, 2009, between Bahrain's King Hamad and U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the king argued forcefully for U.S. action against
Iran, saying: "That program must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." Read more:
www.cbc.ca...

the whole flipping world, from what the leaks are showing so far, is telling America to attack Iran.

here is a thought...let someone else take the heat for a change...we are broke...we want to get out of the damned sandbox and simply make movies and
cheeseburgers for a couple dozen years...have at it yourself.

After reading the posting that was printed, the US federal government is correct, this is going to be far more damaging than anyone could have
anticipated. You see, the problem is that in these files, it is naming names, countries, people. Things that should have been kept on the low down
and never released, or even thought about, have now come to the light and it is going to come around and hurt a lot more than anyone could have.
First thing is that as long as there is no implications of China in this, then it will force Iran to deal more with China and other rogue nations. As
it specifically mentions and has embarrassing situations for some of the Arab states, they very well put out a hit on the leader of Wikileaks, if not
demand that he be turned over to them. The damage is done now, and this is going to go badly. By publishing this, it is going to set back any
changes in Iran that could have happened, by giving the current regime ammunition to not only keep power but remain, as well as, get the Iranian
people on their side. It will give the countries that are against the US ammunition to use against the United States, and damages the creditability.
The United States already has a bad PR image with far too many countries, and is no longer being viewed as a strong power by its allies. This is
going to further put fractures in the ties that are already stretched thin.

I am kind of surprised to see that most of the Middle Eastern countries are afraid of Iran.

All are my opinions of course....ME countries aren't so much *afraid* of Iran, but are in the middle of Iran and Israel--therefore one bombs the other
with nukes--well you get the picture; most of them don't like Iran...Iran is Persian; not Arab; the only ME countries that like them are: Syria off
the top of my head, and the factions Hamas and Hezbollah?

Why would the Saudi king repeatedly warn America to "cut off the head of the snake" before it was too late??

Maybe the Saudi King is actually "the head of the snake"? and is projecting this on to Iran....?

Why would they want America to attack Iran so badly??

Because of the belief that US created a lot of problems in Iraq; and Iran has
provided insurgents/aid

Could it be that Iran actually poses a threat to the stability of the region??

Yes, they already have in my mind! Although the
danger, I believe, is the Supreme Leader

Wouldn't that be novel? The main reason so many countries want the US to attack Iran is so they can look like they were not involved. Plus
the US is normally the crap magnet. You know how the US is the big bad bully to the rest of the world, if we attacked Iran imagine how many other
countries would demonize the attack. These leaks have shown us quite a bit about how the world powers do things behind closed doors.

Hmm.. I will admit, all these WL leaks do seem to be Iran oriented. Do you think maybe they were controlled cable releases to garner support of a war
with Iran. As Americans, it is true, we are more likely to support a war if it is the will of a lot of people. Honestly not just our own needs, but
seeing that the a lot of the ME agrees, it actually had me supporting the idea.. until I realized I was being manipulated.

Or maybe they were intended to make Iran really really paranoid.
What would these countries have to gain? Maybe just cash money from the U.S.?

I for one am glad cooler heads had prevailed and we did not attack Iran.
Doesn't improve our image though. Even though in private behind closed doors there was a cheering section from the ME for such an attack.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Doesn't improve our image though. Even though in private behind closed doors there was a cheering section from the ME for such an attack.

If this is reference to Bahrain and the Saudis what else would be the expected from the "cheering section". Seriously? They are huge paid off US
allies, christ the foreign minister of Bahrain served under the Carter administration. If that doesn't scream puppet I don't know what does. That said
I concur though that it is good to see that the US hasn't, as of yet, gone into Iran, its puzzling but good

Ofcourse nobody wants Iran around. It is merely common knowledge that Middle Eastern countries feel more threatened by Iran than any other neighbor,
say, Israel for example.

The only countries that are politically OK with Iran are Syria, which is basically an Iranian minion-state,
Lebanon, which is almost completely in political control of Hizbollah, being an Iranian proxy organization,
Turkey that is simply pissed for not getting into the EU so it looks for another clique to hang with, and Hamas' Gaza which is more or less OK with
everything that is openly against USA, Israel, or anything not Islamic.

But ofcourse, whomever lived by the hysteria filled news agencies that only report the evildoings of the evil Israeli regime (while ignoring "normal"
stuff that's going on in the Middle East like you know, public hanging of homosexuals and "sinners", arms/legs removal of cheating husbands/wives and
stoning of those aswell, general dehumanization of women, and an endless list of "simple", "normal" stuff that downright piss on the very idea of
human rights

), are seeing this as a scam. Ofcourse they do, they don't even know what's going on in the ME for real but only what the extreme
leftist journalism have chosen to show them.

..The same people are the ones that cry out about how the mainstream media brainwashes everyone. (

:@@

I suppose WikiLeaks is only considered a reliable source as long as it criticizes USA or Israel. Anything else than that automatically makes it a
hoax, a masterplan of "the powers that be" (:@@

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
Ofcourse nobody wants Iran around. It is merely common knowledge that Middle Eastern countries feel more threatened by Iran than any other neighbor,
say, Israel for example.

Are those the same countries that are heavily financed and armed by the US taxpayer? Just curious.

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
But ofcourse, whomever lived by the hysteria filled news agencies that only report the evildoings of the evil Israeli regime (while ignoring
"normal" stuff like public hanging done in Iran

), are seeing this as a scam.

Sorta like ignoring the "normal" public decapitations in the oppressive region of Saudi Arabia?

Haha.. nice example. You can't really make a point using Israel... Israeli guy. What is your solution for Iran?
I think Iran and Israel have the same problem, bad leadership running their countries at the cost of their innocent civilians happiness and safety.

Originally posted by brill
Are those the same countries that are heavily financed and armed by the US taxpayer? Just curious.

Nope, every country that is simply not an Iranian influenced proxy.

Originally posted by brill
Sorta like ignoring the "normal" public decapitations in the oppressive region of Saudi Arabia?

Of-course. What makes you think I'm out to defend Saudi Arabia? Heh.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Haha.. nice example. You can't really make a point using Israel... Israeli guy. What is your solution for Iran?
I think Iran and Israel have the same problem, bad leadership running their countries at the cost of their innocent civilians happiness and safety.

I can make a point using whatever I desire, and my solution for Iran is clearly not suitable for this forum. It simply isn't worth the effort of
typing because there are too many biased opinions around here, not to mention people that will automatically count out my opinion just because I have
an Israeli handle.

Anyhow, both regimes are silly, yet the Israeli regime is secular - the Iranian regime is basically led astray by a religious madman and is as far as
possible than anything secular. That is what actually makes all the difference, not just literally.

Originally posted by Kaiju
Am I the only one who seems to detect a bit of disappointment in most of the first posts that the United States wasn't made out to be the bad guy?
I'm loving every minute of it.

Lol yeah, you're not the only one.
I won't be surprised if in a couple of days, the majority of ATS will pull a 180 and say this is all an American plot from the get go.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.